Still pushing this conspiracy theory Patrick? The election rules for each state are pretty damn clear and Perry and Newt did not have sufficient organization to meet the deadlines in the state on time (specifically they did not get the number of signatures needed). A liberal, conservative, or whatever judge should have made this same call.
And it is not like they aren't letting anyone participate- Paul and Romney met the deadline and will be on the ballot.
Yes you think that the judge being "liberal" (which I am not sure he/she even is considering you think virtually everyone is a liberal) had something to do with it. Just as you always do.Did I allege conspiracy? Nooooooooo. You're hallucinating.
It is well known- was in the news a few weeks back. You of course in this instance would say something along the lines of, "hey sparky go google it", but I'll give you a link anyway: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=2615
And that suggests you think it was a conspiracy where the judge was okay with letting the "RINO" and "unelectable" person through but no one else.
Just for you Sparky, a definition:
con·spir·a·cy /kənˈspɪrə
si/ [kuhn-spir-uh-see]
noun, plural -cies.
An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
Quit misusing elementary words.
Which is what you think happened.
You do think it is two or more, much more in fact. You think that the vast majority of organizations and people are liberals pushing an agenda or RINOs pretending to be conservatives but pushing liberal agendas. And when David proved you wrong, your response was "shut up idiot"? I think we all see who the idiot is here.
No, conspiracy isn't involved because it isn't needed. Libs think alike. They see themselves an elite. They see the Constitution as a quaint, archaic document that they have to continue to pay lip service to, because the rubes still think it's important. They "know" what needs to be done, and they aren't going let the Constitution, or democracy, or the rule of law stand in their way.
David didn't prove sh_t.
David wouldn't recognize proof if it jumped up and bit his face.
You are pathetic. You push your 1800s bigoted views on people and when they show you you are wrong you call them liberals. You love ad hominem attacks and hate proof. Well under your personal definition, I guess we are all liberals now. Have fun as you watch the world burn (although it really isn't).
WhaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?????
"21st century views": Statism, the abortion holocaust, anti-religious bigotry, suppression of free speech, crony capitalism, ecofascism, "affirmative action", giant taxation, unsupportable national debt, massive illegal immigration, hyper-regulation, appeasement, and Ivy League boys thinking they know how to run the world.
WhaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTT?????
"21st century views": Statism, the abortion holocaust, anti-religious bigotry, suppression of free speech, crony capitalism, ecofascism, "affirmative action", giant taxation, unsupportable national debt, massive illegal immigration, hyper-regulation, appeasement, and Ivy League boys thinking they know how to run the world.
None of those have widespread support other than abortion, which is arguably not a bad thing. You really have comprehension problems if you think those are the big ideas of the 21st century
I didn't say they have widespread support - do ever read what someone actually has said??
Those are the "new", "modern" ideas of the liberal/left - their answer to the 18th century ideas - like the Constitution. OF COURSE the majority doesn't support them - that's why they have to bypass all that democracy crapola - with fake "recess appointments", closed one-party meetings on obamacare, a politicized justice department, overreaching by leftwing federal judges, "czars", growing power in the executive branch.
Last edited:
By widespread support I meant notable support including most mainstream academics and people in Congress.
Similar threads
